### ‘THE A~ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
GERALDC. WARN AUSTI~~II.Tsxsan

Eon. B. Y. Gunningham bounty Auditor NavarPo County Corsioana, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-2392 Re: Should Navarro County pay burrial expenses of patients sent to the State Sanatorium? Your recent request for an opinion of~this department on the question as 5s herein stated has been Teoaived. Wequote from your letter as follows: %n’several oooasions Navarro County has sent patients to the State Sanatorium and on some few oooasions these patients die while in the hospital and the undertakers require Navarro County to pay for the burial expense. “Wedonot set up 5n our budget anymonies for this purpose and I amwondering if these patients after being sent to the SanatroiUm.and aooepted by:them,are- notwards of the State of Texas instead of Navarro County.

“So far I have not paid any burial expense and I maybe wrong in myOpiniOn.~ TheDootors tell methat the Sanatorium or the State of Texas have no money foTthLs expense. Will you k%ndly advise whether Navarro County should pay this burial expense or 5.ait anobligation of the State of Texas.” Article 2351, Vernonrs hnnotated 0ivil Statutes, provides In part that eaoh oommissioners t oourt shall “provide for the burial of paupers”

. Under the,above mentloned’statute it 5s inoumbent on oommisaloners* oourts t6 provide for the burial of paupers, and it has been sald~that this is aduty which oounties oweto every auer regardless of whether or not he has been formally iieoyared apauper. But 5r1Order to fix the 15ab515ty of the oounty for burialexpenses, notice should be given to the proper authorities and their permission obtained for thsburial.

‘,“xWJ;l;? Vol. 32, p. 612; MoNorton vs. Val Verde County, 25

. . .Hon. E. Y. Cunningham, page 2, o-2392

In 0888 of MoNorton vs. Val Verde County, supra, it washeld that aoounty is not liable fOT ooffins of 

### paupera dying b a pesthouse whloh la in charge of the atate, under tha 

### quarantine laws. Wequote ,fTomthe above mentioned oaae as follows:

“The only question presented for our deolslon 1s as to the llabillty of the ,oounty for the coffins of those whodied ln the pesthouse while the state had oharge of it under the quarantine laws. Artiole 1514, aubd. 10, Rev. St., makes it incumbent on the oounty to provide for the burial of paupers ; andthis 5s aduty the oounty owes to every pauper, no matter whether he has been formally deolared a pauper by the county or not. Whenever it 5s aaoertalned that amanhas died, whowas apauper, it beoomes the duty of the county to provide for his burial. But in order to flx the liability of ’ the bounty fOTthe burlal expenses, exoept in extreme oases, notice should be given the county judge, or some oounty oomm5ss5oner. It would open the door to frauds on the counties if individual citizens are given the authority to decide whoare paupers. The instances will be rare indeed whenanygreat lnoonvenlenoe will arise from notifying the proper authorities of the ,death of a pauper, and obtalnlng proper authority for the burial. There oan bsno doubt that, if the dootor ln charge of the peathouse has been in the employ of the oounty, it would have been responsible for the oofflns furnished for thoffe whohad been confined and died there, if they were paupers. Under artlole 4090e, Saylee Ann. St., it 5smadethe duty of the governor or the health offioar, ln oases of emergenay, to declare quarantine against any infectious or oontagious dleease, and it la provided in article 40901 that all coats and expenses of enforoing and maintaining any such quarantine shall be paid by the state. The object of quarantine 1s to prevent the entranoe or spread of disease, andweare of the opinion that, to fully meet &e demands of an effiolent quarantine, it would,be necessary ;;a;;;;d5tloualy bury those whodie in the quarantlna

. If the state is in oharge of the quarantine, the expense of the burlal of the paupers whodie 5x1their oharge would rest upon the state. Theburial of those who die in aquarantine station in charge of the state would~ be apart of the neoesaary ooat and expense’ of enforolng andmalntalnlng the quarantine. Eve held contr~ol of the pesthouse, it wou \ if the oounty had dseemthat the oharge of maintaining the quarantlne irou3.d **Ultimately** be ohargeable against the stats. Artials 4097. Weare of the opinion that there 5s no error .-in the.jyd&men,t, and it ie aff5rmed.t’ I &tloIe 3241, ‘Vermont8 Annotated Civil Statutes, reada, In part, as follows 1Hon. E. Y. Cunnlngham, page 3* O-2392

“Patients admltted~to said institut~ions ~shall be of three olaseea, to-wit:

“1. Indigent pub150 patients. fi2. Non-indigent pub110,patIente. it3. Private patients.

“1ndlgent:publio .patFents are thoae whopossess no property of anyklnd nor have any one legally responsible for their support, andwhoare unable to reimburse the State. This olass shall be supported at the expense of the State.

‘Our,bplnlon‘No. O-2021 holds in effeot that the Board of Control has power to enter into abinding oontraot for the preparatlon andburial of lnddgent inmates of oertaIn state eleemosynary InstItutlon. We are enolosing herewith aoopy of this opinion-for your convenienoe. Arepresentative of the Hoard of Control has Informed ua that said Board has madearrangements with various undertakers to bury Indigent inmates whodie in the different eleemosynary Institutions of the State, inoludlng the State.Tuberoulosis Sanatorium; where the relatives OTfriends donot claim the remains of the deoeased, and that the State makes no demand on the county of the resident of the deceased to pay suoh burial expenses. In certain articles dlsouaaed in the case of MoMorton v. Val Verde County, supra, it masmadethe duty of the Governor OTthe health offioer, in oases of emergenoy, to deolare quarantine against infeotloue or contagious diseases, and it was further provided that. all oosts and expenses of enforcing andmaintaining any such quarantine should be paid by the State. In view of the above mentioned case of MoMorIsonv. Val Verde County, webelieve that Artlole 3241, aupra, Imposing upon the State the duty to support and pay the expensea oftpub110 $ndIgent patlents would alao impose upon the State the duty to bury such patients when they die in the State Sanatorium and various other eleemosynary institutions of the State. Therefore, you are respectfully advised that it la the opinion of this .department that Navarro County aould not be liable

‘fdr the burial expenses of publio, indigent patients whoreside in said oounty and die In the State Sanatorium. Such expense ia an obligation of the State of Texas.Hon. E. Y. GunnFngham, page 4, O-2392

Trusting that the foregoing fully ahswers your inquiry, weare, Yours very truly ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OFTEXAS a/ Ardell Williams BY Ardell Williams

Assistant 

## p$dcf3

. APPROVEDJUNE26, 1940 a/ GERALDC. MANN ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OFTEXAS

APPROVEDOPINIONCONMITTEE ByBWB,Ohairman